State of NSW v Vincent

[2017] NSWSC 858

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	State of NSW v Vincent [2017] NSWSC 858
Hearing dates:	23 June 2017
Date of orders:	30 June 2017
Decision date:	30 June 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Harrison J
Decision:	(1) Order pursuant to s 5C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 that Aaron David Vincent be subject to a high risk sex offender extended supervision order for a period of 5 years from today. (2) Direct pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 for the period of the high risk sex offender extended supervision order that Aaron David Vincent comply with the conditions set out in the SCHEDULE to these orders.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – serious sex offender – whether defendant a high risk sex offender – whether high risk sex offender extended supervision order should be made
Legislation Cited:	Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006
Cases Cited:	State of New South Wales v Conway [2011] NSWSC 976 State of New South Wales v Thomas [2010] NSWSC 677
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Aaron David Vincent (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: P Aitken (Plaintiff) A Hawkins (Defendant)   Solicitors: Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2017/67684
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: The State applies by further amended summons filed in Court on 23 June 2017 for an order pursuant to sections 5C(1) and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006 that Mr Vincent be subject to a high risk sex offender extended supervision order for a period of five years. The State also seeks an order that Mr Vincent be directed pursuant to s 11 of the Act to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to the summons.

2. For the purposes of these proceedings, Mr Vincent agrees and accepts that upon the available evidence he is a sex offender and that I could be satisfied to a high degree of probability that he poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision: s 5B(2) of the Act. Ms Hawkins of counsel, who appeared for Mr Vincent, indicated that she did not wish to be heard upon the question of the imposition of an extended supervision order. However, Ms Hawkins submitted that an extended supervision order for a period of five years is not warranted but that three years is adequate. Ms Hawkins also accepted, with minor exceptions to which I will later refer, that the conditions proposed by the State in the Schedule to the summons, are appropriate.

3. In my opinion, Mr Vincent should be made the subject of an extended supervision order for a period of five years, subject to the conditions referred to below. This is for the following reasons.

Background

4. These proceedings were commenced by summons filed on 3 March 2017, seeking a high risk sex offender continuing detention order for a period of six months to be followed by a five year extended supervision order. An amended summons sought orders that a psychologist and a psychiatrist be appointed to examine Mr Vincent. The application was heard on a preliminary basis by Fagan J and determined on 28 March 2017 with the imposition of an interim supervision order. Fagan J was not persuaded that an interim detention order was justified on the material before him. His Honour did however find the matters, if proved, could be the foundation of the Court's satisfaction at final hearing to a high degree of probability that Mr Vincent poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if not supervised under an extended supervision order.

5. Mr Vincent is currently in custody bail refused, having been charged on 29 May 2017 with two offences. Those charges are failing to comply with the existing interim supervision order and using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend. Those charges stem from conduct alleged to have occurred on 27 May 2017 when Mr Vincent telephoned the Police Assistance Line on three occasions, including the disclosure of claimed prior sexual offending against a young child. Mr Vincent had previously been issued with a formal warning by his supervising officer on 6 April 2017 about breaching condition 36 of his interim supervision order relating to phone calls.

6. Mr Vincent was recently released from custody to the interim supervision order following the expiry of his sentence for an offence of contravening a prohibition order made against him pursuant to the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004. He was sentenced in the Central Local Court to 16 months imprisonment, commencing on 3 December 2015 and expiring on 2 April 2017.

7. Mr Vincent’s case is somewhat unusual. On 4 August 2016, he told a counsellor that he was a very high risk of reoffending, that he knew where to find some of the children he had offended against and that he would reoffend as soon as he was released. He said he believed he was unable to change this behaviour and would act upon his urges when he was able. In early January 2017, Mr Vincent contacted a counsellor at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse on several occasions and advised that he planned to reoffend sexually upon his release from custody, against his 7 year old daughter and three similarly aged children of a female friend. He said that he had masturbated in front of his daughter and had her touch his penis when she was an infant.

8. Mr Vincent was questioned by Community Corrections on 5 January 2017 in relation to those disclosures. He denied knowing where his daughter now lived but admitted having contact with the mother of the other three children. He denied having any plans to reoffend sexually. As outlined below, he has made similar remarks over many years to relative strangers, in which he “discloses” fantasies and expresses an intention to offend sexually. Some of this conduct has led to convictions for making false statements and using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend. However, at least one disclosure was true and resulted in his conviction for sexual intercourse with a minor, being a “serious sexual offence” for the purposes of the Act, involving a 15 year old girl.

9. For a number of Mr Vincent’s disclosures and admissions about offending against children, the truth or falsity of what he has said has never been established. Whilst apparent “confessions” to sexual offending cannot be taken into account as part of a person's criminal history, it remains relevant to the issue of the safety of the community: see Davies J in State of New South Wales v Conway [2011] NSWSC 976 at [27]-[39], where his Honour considered the decision in State of New South Wales v Thomas [2010] NSWSC 677 at [39]. Thomas is authority for taking into account a charge which is withdrawn or of which a defendant has been acquitted and held that uncharged acts in that matter that were admitted by the defendant would not fall for consideration under s 9(3)(h) of the Act, but may be relevant under s 9(3)(a).

10. Factors supporting the imposition of an extended supervision order in the present proceedings include:

1. Mr Vincent has been assessed as presenting a high risk of sexual recidivism. Unlike most cases where an assessment of risk is a predictive exercise based on past criminal acts, in the present case the State also relies on Mr Vincent’s own stated intentions to offend against prepubescent females, to the extent that the experts consider these claims to be relevant to the assessment of risk. The psychologist, Mr Patrick Sheehan, who prepared a report concerning Mr Vincent dated 17 May 2017, for example, suggests that Mr Vincent’s index offence “reveals that there is no room for complacency in assuming that [his] sexual interest in young persons is contained to fantasy alone”. He has been described as apparently offending opportunistically.

2. Mr Vincent has not completed sex offender treatment, which commenced in September 2016 in custody. Whilst the Risk Assessment Report author, psychologist Mr Ardasinski, maintains in his current affidavit that Mr Vincent’s problematic behaviours would ideally be best treated by completing his CUBIT program (which is available in custody), the Court-appointed experts consider that community-based treatment is the most effective option.

3. Mr Vincent has shown a poor response to community supervision in the past. His current imprisonment is the result of alleged reoffending while subject to an interim supervision order. A poor history of compliance under supervision may not of itself be decisive in terms of satisfying the requirements for a continuing detention order, but it is obviously highly relevant both to the need for supervision and the conditions of supervision under an extended supervision order.

4. Both Court-appointed experts agree that Mr Vincent’s risk factors are chronic and that long term extended supervision is consequently required. His risk of committing a serious sex offence has been assessed by Mr Ardasinski as high and by Dr O’Dea as significant. Dr O'Dea further regards psychological sex offender treatment programs alone as unlikely to be sufficient to treat Mr Vincent’s paraphilic disorder and that the use of antilibidinal medication to reduce the risk of sex offences (including serious sex offences) is required.

5. Mr Vincent has also failed to comply with a child protection prohibition order and has breached conditions that apply to him as a registrable person on the Child Protection Register. This supports an inference that the supervision provided by an extended supervision order is required to address the risks that he poses. Mr Vincent has sought out social connection with women under his recent interim supervision order and there is concern that his access to children (which may occur through a friendship with a woman) could create an elevated risk where access, opportunity and a fluctuating psychological state combine.

11. Apart from the alleged phone calls to the Police Assistance Line, Mr Vincent has also reported having experienced a spontaneous orgasm when looking at a child in a train recently. If Mr Vincent is continuing to make phone calls alleging that he continues to harbour thoughts of child molestation, whether of past events or present urges, or otherwise to report such urges or paedophilic interest, it underscores that he has not yet made sufficient therapeutic gains or demonstrated behavioural change. This indicates that Mr Vincent continues to require effective engagement and monitoring in the community.

12. As Mr Ardasinski outlines, monitoring and supervision would moderate Mr Vincent's risk, by impeding his access to children. An extended supervision order would provide for mandatory attendance at community-based psychiatric and psychological sessions, with a view to lowering his hyper-libidinous state. Other risk factors, including his substance use disorder, would also be moderated by such supervision. Antilibidinal medication is also required to address risk, according to Dr O'Dea, with apparent support from Mr Sheehan.

13. If it is subsequently established that Mr Vincent committed one or both of the offences with which he is presently charged, it may result in a further custodial sentence. Whether such a sentence would be of sufficient duration to permit CUBIT treatment to be completed is presently unknown. The operation of an extended supervision order may be suspended whilst an offender is in lawful custody: s 10(1A) (b) of the Act.

Mr Vincent’s criminal history: s 9(3) (h)

14. Mr Vincent’s criminal history shows a pattern of offending. He has committed one “serious sex offence” and a number of other offences of a sexual nature. His criminal history discloses the following offences.

Contravene prohibition order

15. This is the matter to which the recently expired sentence relates. On 24 July 2015, Waverly Local Court made a Child Protection Prohibition Order against Mr Vincent under the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 prohibiting him from, among other things, communicating either directly or indirectly, or being in company, with any person under the age of 18 years. In mid-July 2015, Mr Vincent sent a message to a woman who had photographs of herself and young daughters on her Facebook account. They eventually exchanged telephone numbers. On 14 August 2015, the woman agreed to pick Mr Vincent up from Sutherland station. Three female children were present and Mr Vincent entered the car and was given a lift.

16. On 17 August 2015, Mr Vincent asked for another lift, knowing the children would be present in the car. On 19 August 2015, police attended his home and conducted a search of his mobile phone. The history of messages and contacts had been deleted. However, he described his attraction to children to police and said “I don’t know what I would do if I was left alone in a room with the children”. He denied meeting the woman in person. It is not apparent from the available documents how police became aware of his contact with the mother of three children. On 24 August 2015, he was arrested and charged in relation to breaching his prohibition order.

17. For this offence, he was sentenced in the Central Local Court to a total of 16 months imprisonment, commencing on 3 December 2015 and expiring on 2 April 2017, with a non-parole period of 12 months. He was also sentenced for drug possession (cannabis) and resist arrest offences, arising from separate circumstances, and fined $250.

Contravene prohibition order and fail to comply with reporting obligations

18. Mr Vincent was sentenced for these two offences at the same time as the above two offences, to a term of 12 months imprisonment with a 9 month non-parole period.

19. On 3 December 2015, police executed a search warrant at Mr Vincent’s home and found text messages that revealed he had been using social media applications since 18 October 2015. He was charged with failing to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 for failing to inform police he had a second mobile phone. He was also charged with contravening his Child Protection Prohibition Order on the basis that he had sponsored a 6 year old girl in Africa and written her letters, which were found during execution of the search warrant. For those two offences Mr Vincent was sentenced to fixed terms of 6 months and 12 months imprisonment respectively, commencing 3 December 2015.

20. The police facts also stated that on 27 October 2015, Mr Vincent entered a bail agreement that included a condition prohibiting him from using social media of any kind or possessing any device allowing internet access. On 24 November 2015, police received information that he was using various social media websites, including a bondage and fetish website and a website on which he had placed a profile and photo of himself. He was charged with breaching his bail conditions by accessing social media.

Sexual intercourse with a person aged 14 to 16 years and use carriage service to offend

21. This is the conviction that constitutes a “serious sex offence” under the Act. The police facts indicate that in March 2014 Mr Vincent contacted Lifeline, Adelaide, via an internet chat facility. He identified himself and stated that he had sexually assaulted a named 15 year old female in his TAFE class. He described this as rape and said he enjoyed sexual experiences with prepubescent girls. Mr Vincent told Lifeline that he became sexually aroused while bathing his 4 year old daughter. Lifeline contacted police, who attended the Wollongong West TAFE campus and obtained information regarding Mr Vincent and the female student concerned. Police spoke to Mr Vincent, who admitted speaking to Lifeline, but denied any offences against the victim. Police attended the victim’s home. She was initially unwilling to speak but on 29 August 2014 provided a statement that she had been “hanging around” with Mr Vincent and had attended his apartment on 24 or 31 March 2014 where they engaged in sexual intercourse. Mr Vincent was charged on 1 May 2014.

22. On 25 February 2015, Conlon DCJ sentenced Mr Vincent to 15 months imprisonment commencing 1 May 2014, with a non-parole period of 10 months, concluding on 27 February 2015 (with the total sentence expiring on 28 July 2015). An offence of use carriage service to offend was taken into account on a Form 1. That charge concerned his assertions to telephone counselling services that he had exposed himself to children under the age of 12 years in a park in Wollongong between January and March 2014. A search of the police database did not reveal any reports to corroborate his claims.

23. At the time the defendant was sentenced, two back-up charges of act of indecency and loitering near a school/public place by a convicted child sex offender were withdrawn and dismissed. The facts of the loitering charge were that on 30 April 2015, a plainclothes police officer saw Mr Vincent loitering outside the Australia Street Infants School in Newtown for at least ten minutes. He told police that he was on the way to the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre to enquire about boarding house accommodation. As already indicated, a charge that is dismissed is not relevant to criminal history but can be taken into account in assessing the safety of the community: s 9(3)(a) of the Act. The facts of the loitering charge are relevant in that limited respect.

24. Following his conviction for sexual intercourse with a child aged 14 to 16, Mr Vincent was placed on the Child Protection Register. He was released to parole on 2 March 2015. He told his parole officers that since 2007 he had been telephoning agencies and describing sexual fantasies of abusing children, while masturbating during the telephone calls. On or about 28 April 2015, the Probation and Parole Service issued a formal written direction prohibiting him from contacting various agencies including Lifeline, Mensline and Salvos Hope.

Possession of child pornography

25. On 26 August 2011, Mr Vincent was found to have six images of naked female children between the ages of 3 and 14 years on his mobile phone when police searched the device at Port Pirie in South Australia. On 27 April 2012, he was sentenced in the District Court of South Australia to imprisonment for 13 months and 2 weeks commencing 6 December 2011, with a non-parole period of 5 months. It appears that he remained in custody for the term of his sentence and was not released to parole. The sentencing remarks are not presently available.

Use carriage service to menace/harass/offence and give false information that person/property is in danger

26. On 15 July 2009, Mr Vincent contacted a female on an internet chat room known as person.com. He “confessed” to having committed sexual offences against a 2 year old girl, a 3 or 4 year old girl, his 3 month old daughter, his sisters and a niece. He was sentenced in the Wollongong Local Court to concurrent sentences of imprisonment for 6 months for each offence, commencing 21 April 2010 and expiring 20 October 2010.

Use carriage service to menace/harass

27. Mr Vincent had been in a relationship with the victim for 10 months in 2005-2006. He continued to contact the victim despite numerous requests that he desist. On 11 May 2008, Mr Vincent sent a text message to the victim saying if she would not see him, he would have to see her. He said that he wanted sex from her “one last time” and “it’s the only way I won’t destroy you”. Mr Vincent sent another text message to the victim saying “you do this [and] you will be fine deal”. He was sentenced to a Community Service Order of 50 hours by the Wollongong Local Court. An Apprehended Violence Order was also made. He was called up for breach of the Community Service Order. On 9 September 2009, it was revoked and Mr Vincent was placed on a s 9 good behaviour bond for 12 months on condition that he attend Odyssey House and undertake a live-in program. It appears a residential placement never became available and Mr Vincent was later imprisoned for a new offence in any event.

Use carriage service to menace/harass and give false information that person is in danger

28. On 1 April 2007, Mr Vincent was communicating online with an adult female who lived in Tasmania. He told her that he had raped his ex-girlfriend’s nephew and sexually assaulted his younger sisters aged 5 and 7 years. He gave explicit details of the assaults. The adult female made a report to Tasmanian police. Around the same time, Mr Vincent was communicating online with a female located in Wollongong, telling her that he had sexually assaulted an 11 year old female at Woonona Beach. That witness made a report to Wollongong Police who spoke to Mr Vincent about the incident, unaware at that point of the Tasmanian report. Mr Vincent told police that it was “just a joke”.

29. Mr Vincent then contacted the Tasmanian female, believing that she had reported him to the police. He told her he was going to cause his sisters to perform oral sex on each other and have anal sex with them, which caused her to contact police in Tasmania again, who then liaised with Wollongong Police. Police attended Mr Vincent’s house in the early hours to check upon the welfare of his sisters. His mother told the police that he had made similar allegations the previous year, when he told a friend that he had sexually assaulted his sisters, which resulted in DOCS interviewing them, who did not disclose any assaults. Upon being questioned, Mr Vincent admitted to police that he had told both witnesses he had sexually assaulted children, saying he had a “problem”. Mr Vincent was sentenced in the Wollongong Local Court to a good behaviour bond for two years on 14 November 2007.

30. Mr Vincent has a number of other non-sexual offences on his criminal record. These include a dishonesty offence, dealt with under s10 in 2004, a property damage offence in 2005, offences of interpersonal violence, namely common assault in 2008 and stalk/intimidate with intent to cause fear of physical/mental harm in 2006, and possession of drugs committed in 2015. Mr Vincent has a criminal record in Queensland for stealing and fraud in 2006. There appears to be an outstanding warrant current for the offence of unlawful stalking/intimidate/use violence for an offence alleged to have been committed on 3 October 2006 in Rockhampton.

Reports from court appointed experts – s 7(4) and s 9(3) (b)

31. Mr Patrick Sheehan and Dr Jeremy O'Dea have provided reports to which earlier reference has been made. At the time they did so the recent alleged offences had not occurred. Both specialists have agreed that information concerning these alleged offences has not altered their substantive opinions.

Mr Patrick Sheehan

32. Mr Sheehan considered that Mr Vincent’s prognosis was poor in the absence of an extended supervision order, to the extent that there was a heightened risk that within approximately six months Mr Vincent would engage in high risk behaviour such as using deviant sexual fantasies to cope with negative affective states, including using carriage services to discuss his fantasies in detail. An extended supervision order would assist in containing those risks, which are chronic and contemporaneous. Mr Sheehan considered that it was unrealistic to expect that, even with genuine effort, Mr Vincent would be able to overcome the difficulties in a short period. To that extent it pointed towards an extended supervision order at the higher end of the range, although he suggested supervision for three years to promote Mr Vincent’s participation and optimism.

33. The fact that Mr Vincent had persisted with the offence-parallel behaviours in custody (contacting hotlines to discuss deviant sexual content) whilst under scrutiny suggested the persistence of his deviance as a coping mechanism and some ambivalence about actual behavioural change. A personality disorder appeared to accompany his paedophilic interest. Treatment notes revealed a “mixed picture” of his treatment experience in custody.

34. Mr Sheehan agreed with Mr Ardasinski's assessment of dynamic risk, but suggested the likely offending would be via a carriage service to a support worker or someone he had met on social media, to engage in discussing his deviant fantasy while masturbating. Possibly significantly, there was a “less imminent risk of actual hands-on offences against young persons” although Mr Vincent’s risk of engaging in a serious sex offence, even if less imminent, pointed towards a risk estimate in the high range. However Mr Sheehan considered that the extended supervision order conditions proposed by the State would adequately manage the risk of a serious sex offence being committed. He also thought that those same conditions would be less effective in reducing the likelihood of the less serious types of sexual offending that have characterised the bulk of Mr Vincent’s offending history.

35. Both Mr Sheehan and Mr Ardasinski supported Mr Vincent receiving Dialectical Behaviour Therapy, which is available in the community, to address his personality disorder. Mr Sheehan appeared to support the use of antilibidinal medication, although noting that it was beyond his expertise to make recommendations about it. Mr Vincent is apparently willing to commence it. Mr Sheehan could not identify what escalated Mr Vincent from fantasy to action in the index offence, but warned that there was “no room for complacency” in assuming that his sexual interest in young persons was contained to fantasy alone. He concluded by stating that were Mr Vincent’s fluctuating psychological state, his heightened arousal and environmental contingencies to align, he would be vulnerable to acting out the fantasies and committing a serious sex offence. He considered that an extended supervision order would assist in containing those (chronic) risks and that the threshold for a continuing detention order was not met.

Dr Jeremy O'Dea

36. Dr O'Dea had the advantage of having treated Mr Vincent for a period of some months in the community in 2015, including a brief period when he apparently responded well to the antilibidinal Androcur until the dosage had to be increased. He had treated him for a diagnosed paedophilic disorder and considered that there were pointers to other frank paraphilic disorders. Dr O’Dea found a personality disorder indicated, with at least significant antisocial traits. Dr O'Dea opined that the best predictors of future sex offending behaviours were past sex offending and the presence of significant sexual deviance, in particular paraphilic disorders, especially in the context of a substance use disorder and a personality disorder.

37. In consultation with Dr O'Dea, Mr Vincent disclosed a specific and significant sexual attraction to prepubescent girls, which would pop into his head a few times a day. Mr Vincent expressed a willingness again to try antilibidinal medication. Dr O'Dea concluded that Mr Vincent was a significant risk of further sex offending in the long term, including a serious sex offence, if he abused illicit substances and did not successfully address his paedophilic disorder. The latter required long term community treatment. However he concluded that it was unlikely that sex offender treatment programs alone, either in custody or the community, would be sufficient treatment and considered that the use of Androcur and abstinence from alcohol and drugs would be the most appropriate and effective treatment. Structured drug and alcohol counselling should be pursued.

38. Dr O'Dea concluded that Mr Vincent’s risk of engaging in further sex offending behaviours in the community long term was significantly high, with a significantly high degree of probability that he would pose a significant risk of committing a further serious sex offence if the outlined community psychiatric treatment interventions were not successfully implemented in the context of community supervision. Dr O'Dea also concluded that a further period in custody, short or medium term, is unlikely to result in significant clinical change in Mr Vincent’s risk profile and that community management was likely to be adequate to manage risk, with an extended supervision order of five years recommended.

Assessments by psychiatrists/psychologists and statistical likelihood of re-offending: s 9(3) (c) and (d)

39. A Risk Assessment Report was prepared by Mr Ardasinski, a psychologist with the Serious Offenders Assessment Unit, Corrective Services NSW on 12 December 2016. Mr Ardasinski maintained his views about the suitability of custody-based completion of CUBIT treatment in his affidavit of 2 June 2017. He considered that Mr Vincent is at an overall high risk of sexual reoffending relative to other male sexual offenders. His serious sexual violence occurred opportunistically when he was sexually preoccupied or frustrated, using substances and encountered a young naïve female with whom he connected intimately, and who he coerced into sexual activity. Mr Vincent’s risk of repeat sexual offending would be most significantly increased in situations where he has access to children, he experiences deviant sexual fantasies about abusing children or is otherwise sexually preoccupied and feels lonely or abandoned by his support network.

40. Mr Ardasinski considered that those high risk scenarios may result in a similar level of sexual violence as Mr Vincent’s index offence. However, a more likely outcome would involve Mr Vincent returning to online and/or telephone offending and making obscene phone calls for sexual gratification. Mr Ardasinski cautioned that Mr Vincent’s risk of serious sexual violence “should not be underestimated”.

41. Mr Ardasinski applied a number of risk assessment tools, or considered the results from the application of those tools by other therapists, including the Level of Service Inventory- Revised (LSI-R), STATIC-99R, STABLE-2007, and the Risk of Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP). In relation to Mr Vincent’s “dynamic” or changeable risk factors, Mr Ardasinski considered that the main factors relevant to his risk were as follows:

1. His deviant sexual interests and diversity of sexual violence. Recent psychiatric opinion is that Mr Vincent has sadomasochistic tendencies, hypersexual arousal and other paraphilic interests. He has a diverse pattern of sexual offending.

2. Problems with intimate relationships and general social rejection. Mr Vincent has a long history of volatile relationships which have involved domestic violence. He has been the subject of Apprehended Violence Orders on a number of occasions. His serious sexual offending occurred within the context of a relationship breakdown, and feeling rejected. Mr Ardasinski opined that this will be an ongoing risk for Mr Vincent in the context of his personality disorder and difficulties relating to intimate partners. Perceived rejection is a significant risk issue for him.

3. Borderline personality disorder and psychological coercion in sexual violence. Mr Vincent has used psychological coercion in the context of his sexual violence. He suggested to Mr Ardasinski that his capacity for manipulation was a characteristic of his borderline personality disorder.

4. Problems with non-intimate relationships and boredom.

5. Poor capacity to plan and poor problem solving and impulsivity. Mr Vincent told Mr Ardasinski that he wished to relocate to Tasmania and work on fishing boats and that this would be an effective risk management approach to avoid victim contact. Mr Ardasinski considered that this is one example of his simplistic strategies to manage his risk.

6. Poor stress coping and problems with substance abuse. Mr Vincent has a long and “quite entrenched history” of cannabis misuse. He admitted to Mr Ardasinski cannabis “may have had the effect of reducing his inhibitions and impairing his decision-making within the context of offending”.

7. Problems with self-awareness and problems relating to child abuse.

8. Poor compliance with supervision.

42. Mr Ardasinski did not offer any diagnosis for Mr Vincent’s mental problems, but noted that he was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder by a clinical psychologist in 2008 and that the most recent psychiatric opinion, being that of Dr Elliott on 12 February 2016, indicated a paraphilia. Mr Ardasinski said that Mr Vincent appears to experience a form of sexual paraphilia known as “telephone scatalogia”. Mr Vincent acknowledged deriving sexual gratification from his phone calls to chat-lines in which he reported false past crimes and/or risks to carry out “further” offending. He told Mr Ardasinski that he masturbated during the phone calls, mostly when the telephone counsellors probed for details to inform police.

43. Mr Ardasinski noted Dr Elliott's opinion that Mr Vincent’s sexual history is suggestive of a long-term hyper-libidinous state and that his sexual interests include sadomasochism. Dr Elliott said that he had sexual attraction to “all novel means of sexual activity, including paedophilic sexual interests”. Dr Elliott recommended that he resume antilibidinal therapy to assist management of his hypersexual arousal and paraphilic interests. Mr Vincent told Mr Ardasinski that he saw no point in taking such medications in custody but was agreeable to resuming such therapy upon release. Mr Ardasinski noted his history of self-harm.

44. In relation to his index offence, Mr Vincent told Mr Ardasinski that he committed the offence because of his unstable relationship with his girlfriend at the time, his sexual attraction to the victim and that he simply took the opportunity to offend when it presented itself.

45. Mr Ardasinski noted Mr Vincent’s statement to a counsellor on 4 August 2016 that he believes he is at very high risk of reoffending post-release. The counsellor stated:

“Aaron indicated that he is at very high risk of reoffending. He said that he knows where to find some of the children he has offended against and he would reoffend as soon as he is released. He believes he is unable to change this behaviour and will have urges to reoffend for the rest of his life and will act upon them when he is able.”

46. Mr Ardasinski questioned Mr Vincent about his self-incriminating statements. Mr Vincent said that such suggestions were “cries for help” and attempts to get himself into treatment sooner. Mr Ardasinski did not comment on the truth or falsity of those remarks.

47. If an extended supervision order were to be imposed, Mr Ardasinski suggested that Mr Vincent’s social contacts should be scrutinised, particularly to minimise opportunities for victim contact through vulnerable women who have children. He should be subject to unannounced and announced home visits and drug testing, should have to wear electronic monitoring equipment and provide a schedule of movements, and should be referred to risk management therapy sessions and drug and alcohol group programs. The present progress under the interim supervision order has revealed a degree of monitoring of social contacts, which have been outlined in the affidavits of Mr Ardasinski and Ms Carden of 2 June 2017.

Report from CSNSW on management in the community: s 9(3)(d1)

48. In a Risk Management Report dated 13 January 2017, Community Corrections Officer Amanda Carden outlined a risk management plan, should Mr Vincent be subject to an extended supervision order. Management on an extended supervision order would include weekly face to face contact, scheduled and unannounced home visits, field visits, electronic monitoring and a schedule of movements. It would also include mandatory attendance at psychological services (such as Forensic Psychology Services), psychiatric intervention and alcohol and drug services, plus weekly contact with third parties involved in his interventions. Mr Vincent would also be subjected to the carrying out of alcohol and drug testing and non-association and place restrictions (including a direction not to have contact with children under the age of 18 unless supervised by an approved responsible adult) and regular searches of his telecommunications devices. The risk management plan would be reviewed and updated where necessary.

Treatment or rehabilitation programs undertaken and the defendant’s willingness to participate in such programs: s 9(3)(e)

49. Mr Ardasinksi’s Risk Assessment Report indicated that Mr Vincent has been partially treated as he commenced the high intensity sex offender program (CUBIT) in September 2016, but has not fully completed it. It is a six to ten month program, comprising three 2½ hour group therapy sessions per week. Mr Ardasinski stated that Mr Vincent appeared to be making stable progress. Emotional regulation and sexual self-regulation were key treatment targets. Clearly the current alleged offences, if subsequently proven or admitted, would suggest that self-regulation remains a chronic issue to address. Mr Ardasinski maintained his views in a supplementary report.

50. Despite his participation in CUBIT, in early January 2017, Mr Vincent contacted the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and advised that he planned sexually to reoffend upon his release from custody, against his 7 year old daughter and three similarly aged children of a female friend. He was questioned by Community Corrections on 5 January 2017. He denied knowing where his daughter now lives but admitted having contact with the mother of the other three children. He denied having any plans to reoffend sexually. He said he made those calls because he was lonely over the Christmas period.

51. Clinical notes kept by Corrective Services psychologists in 2014/2015 present a disturbing picture of Mr Vincent’s mental state and contain numerous confessions to alleged sexual offences, including sexual abuse of named young females. At a number of sessions he described his deviant thoughts about young girls, including his daughter.

52. In March 2015, Mr Vincent said that he started thinking about consensual sexual activity with females aged between 3 and 11 years in 2007. During one session, the psychologist recorded her concern that “it appeared he may have been concealing an erection”. He described his “arousal” as “constant” and at times “unbearable”. Mr Vincent said he acted on these urges by calling helplines and “making fantasies real” by telling people about offences that did not really happen. Several notes describe the process by which his thoughts can escalate to “flashing” and then “touching” if he has access to children. In April 2015, Mr Vincent is reported to have said that the “real risk [is] if he is left alone with a female child”.

53. In his consent to participate in the CUBIT program in 2016, Mr Vincent wrote:

“I indeed get powerful urges towards prepubesant [sic] females sexually. It has been an ongoing problem since I was a teenager and is something I feel I can’t controle [sic] … I do believe it is imperative I complete the CUBIT program”.

Level of compliance with obligations on parole: s 9(3)(f)

54. Mr Vincent’s level of compliance with parole has been poor. On 22 May 2015, the State Parole Authority revoked his parole. He had been released on 2 March 2015. Parole was revoked for a number of reasons, including that Mr Vincent was charged on 4 May 2015 with an offence of loitering near a school and he had been making inappropriate telephone calls to service providers such as Lifeline, disclosing sexual abuse of a graphic nature against a minor. FACS informed Community Corrections of this on 16 April 2015.

55. During previous periods on parole, in 2007 and 2008, Mr Vincent was sent warning letters about failing to attend appointments as required. He committed offences while he was the subject of a good behaviour bond in 2008.

Level of compliance with obligations under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 and under the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Order) 2004: s 9(3)(g)

56. Mr Vincent’s level of compliance with obligations under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 and under the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 has been poor.

56. The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act requires the Commissioner of Police to establish a Child Protection Register and requires a “registrable person” to register and provide specified information to police (such as residential address and the names and ages of children with whom they reside or have unsupervised contact). Registrable persons are those who a court has found guilty and sentenced in respect of certain classes of offences against a child. The Act provides for two classes of offences. Class 1 offences include the murder of a child and sexual intercourse with a child. Class 2 offences include acts of indecency, possession of child pornography, kidnapping of a child, filming a child for indecent purposes, and grooming offences. Reporting obligations commence when a person is sentenced or, if sentenced to gaol, when they are released. The Act creates offences for failing to comply with reporting obligations or furnishing false and misleading information.

57. Mr Vincent is registered on the Child Protection Register on the basis of his convictions for a Class 1 offence in NSW (sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years) and a Class 2 offence in South Australia (aggravated possession of child pornography).

58. The Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act enables police to apply to the Local Court to prohibit a registrable person under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act from engaging in specific behaviour. The Court must be satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, there is a reasonable cause to believe that the person poses a risk to the sexual safety or the life of a child, or to children generally. The criteria are set out in s 5(3) of that Act. That Act makes it an offence to contravene a prohibition order without reasonable excuse.

59. A prohibition order was made against Mr Vincent on 24 July 2015 by Waverley Local Court on the application of police. That prohibition order prohibits him from, among other things, actively communicating with any child by any means or being in company with any child.

60. Mr Vincent has two convictions for breaching his prohibition order and one conviction for failing to report in relation to the Child Protection Register.

Views of the sentencing court: s 9(3)(h1)

62. Judge Conlon described the facts of the index offence as placing it “very much towards the lower end of the scale of offending” and that had the same facts been presented for another offender with no criminal history it would be likely that a custodial penalty may not be required. For the offence for which Mr Vincent most recently completed a sentence of imprisonment, the Court noted that whilst there had been pleas of guilty, it could not “be unmindful of the objective seriousness of the offending behaviour”. His Honour directed remarks to Mr Vincent saying “there could be no doubt, in your mind, as to what the obligations, or indeed, what constraints operated upon you as a result of a conviction you received at the District Court late in 2014 or 2015, as the case may be”.

The safety of the community: s 9(a)

63. The documents are replete with claims by Mr Vincent that he has committed sexual offences other than those for which he has been convicted and that he intends to commit further offences when he is released. Although many have been investigated and proved to be false, the State emphasised Mr Sheehan’s comment that there could be no room for complacency in assuming that Mr Vincent’s sexual interest in young persons is confined to fantasy alone. There is evidence of complaint by two females under the age of 16 with whom Mr Vincent has had sexual intercourse, one as recently as 2014. Victim’s compensation documents contain claims by a woman that Mr Vincent had a relationship with her and sexually abused her when she was 14 years old and when he was around 22 years old, in the period 2004 to 2006.

64. The State contended that in making these fantasy assertions, Mr Vincent is clearly not credible, with the result that any self-professed claims to have developed insight and/or behavioural change must be treated with great caution. The fact that he has acted on his sexual urges by having sexual intercourse with a 15 year old girl and that he pursued them to the extent of possessing images of naked children demonstrates that his “fantasy” world can escalate into more risky behaviours, and actual sexual offending on one occasion, when the opportunity presents itself. As Dr O’Dea notes, the relevant section of the community whose safety is at risk is most likely prepubescent females in particular.

65. Also of concern is Mr Vincent’s reporting of experiencing a “spontaneous orgasm” when he saw up the skirt of a young girl on a train. Whilst no “contact offending” occurred on this occasion, this incident, if true, demonstrates Mr Vincent’s real risk to the safety of the community if he is placed in a position opportunistically to commit a serious sex offence should he prove unable to control his hyper-libidinous state and sexual urges.

Any other information that is relevant to his risk: s 9(3)(i)   

66. Mr Vincent has admitted being a heavy user of illegal drugs with preferences for ecstasy and marijuana and binge drinking, with daily cannabis use maintained for many years. Dr O’Dea considered that Mr Vincent should be totally abstinent from cannabis, alcohol and other illicit drug use in the long term, in order to manage and minimise his risk of committing further sex offences.

Does Mr Vincent pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence: s 5B?

67. I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Vincent poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision. In forming that view I put aside entirely the fact that Mr Vincent has, by his counsel, also accepted that he is a person in respect of whom it is appropriate for an extended supervision order to be made. That is because it remains for me to be satisfied upon the evidence whether Mr Vincent poses an unacceptable risk of the type in question. The concession of a defendant concerning that issue may be very helpful procedurally but cannot be determinative substantively.

68. The present case is unusual for a number of reasons. The index offence was an offence, according to the remarks of the sentencing judge, “very much towards the lower end of the scale of offending”. The sentence imposed by his Honour was commensurate with that assessment. Despite the fact that the offence in question qualified as a serious sex offence falling within the definition of that expression in the Act, the details of the offence standing alone do not provide an informative guide to the risk currently posed by Mr Vincent.

69. Secondly, the matters that enliven the concerns of the experts in this case are not the past commission of serious sex offences by Mr Vincent, or what has been referred to as “hands on” incidents, but Mr Vincent’s claims either to have committed serious sex offences that have not been corroborated, or the making of telephone calls to various agencies giving details of his desires to commit serious sex offences or his fantasies about doing so.

70. Thirdly, and in a related sense, much of the assessment of the risk posed by Mr Vincent is based upon or derives from these self-reports or from what Mr Vincent has volunteered. The State was sceptical of the extent to which they could be viewed, as Mr Vincent has suggested, as cries for help. It seems to me that the true position in that respect is beside the point. In many cases, what Mr Vincent has apparently confessed to has been circumstantially corroborated by third parties. While the commission of serious sex offences has not been established in these incidents, the opportunity to do so and the expressed desire to do so have both been evident. I cannot ignore the fact that Mr Vincent has acknowledged himself that there is a real risk if he is left alone with a female child.

71. Fourthly, and once again very unusually in my experience in cases such as this, Mr Vincent appears to have considerable insight into and appreciation of his sexual urges and the relationship that they bear to the risk of committing a serious sex offence. That insight is not perfect, and it is not a factor that neutralises, far less eradicates, the risk that he poses. It may, however, intersect with the question of the conditions that should be imposed upon him in the context of an extended supervision order on the one hand and the length of the supervision on the other hand.

72. I have been significantly persuaded by Mr Sheehan’s concern that there is no room for complacency concerning, in effect, the assessment of Mr Vincent’s level of risk. The emphatic burden of the experts in this matter is that Mr Vincent’s paraphilic disorder, in the context of his underlying personality disorder, is effectively chronic and permanent. Treatment regimes, including anti-libidinal medication, have some prospect of successfully reducing or controlling the risk that Mr Vincent may reoffend sexually. However, the bleak prospect is that without continual monitoring and supervision, the commission of further serious sex offences is inevitable.

73. Mr Sheehan gave evidence that emphasised the need generally, but specifically in Mr Vincent’s case, to be careful not to imperil the prospect that Mr Vincent will continue to cooperate in efforts successfully to supervise him, by the imposition or overly strict enforcement of conditions of supervision with which he will be required to comply. Indeed, a level of Mr Vincent’s frustration is apparent from the terms of his recorded interview with Detective Senior Constables Payne and Ware at Campbelltown Police Station on 29 May 2017. That interview left me with the impression that Mr Vincent was willing to cooperate with his supervisors to address his problems and minimise or reduce the risk that he poses but that he was frustrated by what he saw as unnecessary or pedantic interpretations of the conditions that applied to him. My interpretation of that frustration is favourable to the prospect of long term cooperation by Mr Vincent rather than the opposite.

74. In summary, I consider that Mr Vincent’s risk can be managed but it can never be eradicated. I consider that the risk posed by Mr Vincent of committing a serious sex offence is unacceptable if he is not kept under supervision. I am satisfied of these matters to a high degree of probability.

Duration

75. I am unable presently to foresee a time when the risk that Mr Vincent will commit a further serious sex offence will not be present. Put a different way, I consider that Mr Vincent’s risk of committing a further serious sex offence will always be unacceptable in the absence of supervision and the imposition of suitable conditions. It seems therefore somewhat contradictory to speak in terms of a period of supervision less than five years. As presently advised, any period shorter than the maximum allowed by the Act would have the inevitable consequence of another application as that shorter period of supervision was ending.

Conditions

76. Mr Vincent accepts that the conditions proposed by the State are acceptable, with the following exceptions:

20.    If the defendant is unemployed, the defendant must enter available employment if and as directed by the DSO or make himself available for employment, education, training or participation in a personal development program as directed by the DSO.

22.    The defendant must provide any information relating to his financial affairs, including income and expenditure, if directed by his DSO.

77. Mr Vincent has contended that such conditions are unnecessary, unduly restrictive and likely to be inimical to the prospect of his long term cooperation and compliance with the conditions in general. I agree.

78. It is important in my view not to lose sight of the fact that Mr Vincent, or anyone in his position, is, or will be, at large in the community, operating as one of its members, and presumably doing his or her best to lead what in the circumstances might be considered to be a normal life, or as close to that concept as is possible. Proposed condition 21, to which no objection is taken, provides that Mr Vincent must not start any job, volunteer work or educational course without the approval of his DSO. In my opinion, that condition is more than sufficient to accommodate any concerns about where Mr Vincent might work. I do not consider that he should be required to provide information relating to his financial affairs or how he spends his money. Mr Vincent has already been returned to custody for breach of conditions attaching to his interim supervision. Requiring him to keep details of his expenditure, against the contingency that a failure to do so might render him vulnerable to reincarceration, is burdensome and disproportionate and should not be imposed.

Orders

79. I therefore make the following orders:

1. Order pursuant to s 5C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 that Aaron David Vincent be subject to a high risk sex offender extended supervision order for a period of 5 years from today.

2. Direct pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 for the period of the high risk sex offender extended supervision order that Aaron David Vincent comply with the conditions set out in the SCHEDULE to these orders.

SCHEDULE

Part A: Reporting and Monitoring Obligations

Monitoring and Reporting

1.    The defendant must accept the supervision of Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW) until the end of the Order.

2.    The defendant must report to the Department Supervising Officer (DSO) or any other person supervising him as directed by the DSO.

3.    The defendant must follow all reasonable directions by his DSO or any other person supervising him.

4.    The defendant must attend the police station nearest to his approved accommodation within 3 days of the date of this order and provide a copy of this order.

Electronic Monitoring

5.    The defendant must wear electronic monitoring equipment as directed by the DSO or any other person supervising him.

Schedule of Movements

6.    If directed, the defendant must provide a weekly plan (called a schedule of movements) and this is to be provided 3 days before it is due to start.

7.    If the defendant wants to change anything in his schedule of movements once it is approved by his DSO, he must tell his DSO about the change 24 hours in advance, unless the DSO approves a shorter period.

8.    The defendant must not deviate from his approved schedule of movements except in an emergency.

9.    The defendant must truthfully answer questions from his DSO, or any other person supervising him, about where he is, where he is going and what he is doing.

Part B: Accommodation

10.    The defendant must live at an address approved by his DSO.

11.    The defendant must be at his approved address between 9pm and 6am unless other arrangements are approved by his DSO.

12.    The defendant must allow his DSO or any other person supervising him to visit him at his approved address at any time and, for that purpose, to enter the premises at that address.

13.    The defendant must not spend the night anywhere other than his approved address without the approval of his DSO.

14.    The defendant must not permit any person to enter and remain, or to stay overnight, at his approved address, without the prior approval of his DSO.

Part C: Place and travel restrictions

15.    The defendant must not leave New South Wales without the approval of CSNSW.

16.    The defendant must surrender any passports held by the defendant to the Commissioner.

17.    The defendant must not go to a place if his DSO tells him he cannot go there.

18.    Without limiting condition 17 above, the defendant must not go to any:

a.   Day-care centres, pre-schools and schools;

b.   Amusement parlours, amusement parks and theme parks;

c.   Cinemas without the prior approval of the DSO;

d.   Libraries and museums without the prior approval of the DSO;

e.   Camping grounds and caravan parks;

f.   Children’s playgrounds, parks, and areas with play equipment provided for the use of children;

g.   Pools, playing fields and sporting facilities;

h.   Concerts, theatre shows, movies, events and activities intended for the entertainment of children; or

i.   Residences where the defendant knows that persons under 18 ordinarily reside;

j.   Internet cafes or other businesses which provide public access to the internet either for payment or for no charge (other than employment agencies).

19.   The defendant must not attend any place where alcohol or drugs are illegally sold.

19a.   The defendant must not attend any place used solely or mainly for the sale or display of sexually explicit material or sexually explicit entertainment without the prior approval of the DSO.

Part D: Employment, finance and education

…

21.   The defendant must not start any job, volunteer work or educational course without the approval of his DSO.

…

Part E: Drugs and alcohol

23.   The defendant must not possess or use illegal drugs, or have a concentration of 0.05 grams or more of alcohol in 210 litres of his breath or 100 millilitres of his blood and he must not possess or use prescription medication other than as prescribed.

24.   The defendant must submit to testing for drugs and alcohol as directed by his DSO.

25.   The defendant must not enter any licensed premises without the approval of his DSO.

26.   The defendant must attend and participate in programmes and courses for drug and alcohol rehabilitation as directed by his DSO, and must not discharge himself from such programs and courses without prior approval of his DSO.

Part F: Non-association

Association with Children

27.    The defendant must not approach or have contact with anyone who he knows is under 18 unless his DSO tells him he can, and he is with someone who has been approved in writing by his DSO.

Associations with Others (not children)

28.   The defendant must not associate with people that his DSO tells him not to.

29.   The defendant must not associate with any people who he is aware are consuming or under the influence of illegal drugs.

30.   The defendant must not engage the services of sex workers without prior approval of the DSO.

31.   If the defendant starts a relationship with someone, he has to tell his DSO who may want to tell the person about his criminal history.

32.    The defendant must obtain written permission from the DSO prior to joining or affiliating with any club or organisation, including any internet or mobile based social networking service.

Part G: Access to the internet and other electronic communication

33.   The defendant must give his DSO a list of all devices, services and applications he uses to communicate with or to access the internet. This includes phones, tablet devices, data storage devices or computers. This includes the details of telephone numbers, service provider account numbers, email addresses or other user names and relevant passwords and codes, used by the defendant and the nature and details of the internet connection, as directed.

34.   The DSO (or any other person requested by the DSO) may remotely inspect any internet account used by the defendant, including the defendant’s email addresses, in monitoring compliance with this order.

35.   The defendant must obey any reasonable directions by his DSO about the use of phones, tablet devices, data storage devices, computers and other devices, including any reasonable directions relating to his access to the internet.

36.   The defendant must not telephone any person or agency that his DSO tells him not to contact.

37.   The defendant must allow his telephone and/or internet service provider to share information about his accounts with his DSO.

38.   The defendant must provide a list of communication devices and data storage devices in the defendant’s possession and advise the DSO of any change to the inventory immediately.

Part H: Search and seizure

39.   If the DSO reasonably believes that a search (of the type referred to in sub-paragraphs d to f below) is necessary:

a.   for the safety and welfare of residents or staff or persons present at the defendant’s approved address;

b.   to monitor the defendant’s compliance with this order; or

c.   because the DSO reasonably suspects the defendant of behaviour or conduct associated with an increased risk of the defendant committing a serious offence;

then the DSO may direct, and the defendant must submit to:

d.   search and inspection of any part of, or any thing in, the defendant’s approved address;

e.   search and inspection of any part of, or any thing in, any vehicle owned, hired by or under the control of the defendant;

f.   search and inspection of any part of, or any thing in, any storage facility, including a garage, locker or commercial facility owned, hired by or under the control of the defendant; and/or

g.   search and examination of his person.

40.   For the purposes of the above condition:

a.   a search of the defendant means a garment search or a pat- down search.

b.   to the extent practicable a pat-down search will be conducted by a DSO of the same sex as the defendant, or by an Officer of CSNSW of the same sex as the defendant under the direction of the DSO.

NOTE:

“Garment search” means a search of any article of clothing worn by the defendant or in the defendant's possession, where the article of clothing is touched or removed from the person's body.

“Pat-down search” means a search of a person where the person's clothed body is touched.

41.    During a search carried out pursuant to conditions 39 above and 42 below, the defendant must allow the DSO (or any other person requested by the DSO) to seize anything found, whether in the defendant's possession or not, which the DSO reasonably suspects will compromise:

a.   the safety of residents or of staff at the defendant’s approved address;

b.    the welfare or safety of any member of the public or any other person; or

c.    the defendant's compliance with this order;

or which the DSO reasonably suspects relates to behaviour or conduct associated with an increased risk of the defendant committing a serious offence.

42.   The defendant must allow CSNSW to search any phone, tablet device, data storage device or computer that he may use. Any such search may be conducted in the absence of the defendant.

43.   The defendant must not attempt to destroy or interfere with any object that is the subject of a search or seizure, carried out pursuant to conditions 39 to 42 above.

Part I: Access to pornographic, violent and classified material

44.   The defendant must not purchase, possess, access, obtain, view, participate in or listen to material that has not received classification from the Australian Classification Board and is not in a hard copy format, or any other material of a sexually explicit nature as directed by the DSO.

Part J: Personal details and appearance

45.   The defendant must not change his name from “Aaron David Vincent” or use any other name without the approval of his DSO.

46.    The defendant must not use any alias, log-in name, or a name other than “Aaron David Vincent” or use any email address other than those known to the DSO under condition 33 above, on any internet site (including social networking sites), any online communication applications or any third party sites or applications that requires the user to have a user identification name or log-in email.

47.   The defendant must not change his appearance without the approval of his DSO.

48.    The defendant must let CSNSW photograph him.

49.    If the defendant changes the details of any current form of identification or obtains further forms of identification, he must provide the DSO with such details.

Part K: Medical intervention and treatment

50.    The defendant must notify his DSO of the identity and address of any healthcare practitioner that he consults.

51.    The defendant must attend all psychological and psychiatric assessments, therapy, support and treatment that his DSO tells him to attend.

52.    The defendant must take all medications that are prescribed to him by his healthcare practitioners.

53.   If the defendant knowingly ceases to take medication that has been prescribed, either on a temporary or permanent basis, the defendant is to notify the DSO within 24 hours of ceasing to take the medication.

54.   The defendant must agree to his healthcare practitioners sharing information including reports on his progress and information he has told them with each other and with his DSO.

55.   The defendant must agree to any information being shared between those agencies that are involved in his supervision including, but not limited to, his DSO and CSNSW.

**********

Decision last updated: 30 June 2017